Obamacare rollout status report: central place for updates

[sactoking]

Medicaid isn't necessarily the greatest thing since sliced bread. For example, here in Nevada you can get 60 habilitative visits per year on insurance. On Medicaid? you get 7 visits every 3 years...

 

[senseamp]

Medicaid isn't necessarily the greatest thing since sliced bread. For example, here in Nevada you can get 60 habilitative visits per year on insurance. On Medicaid? you get 7 visits every 3 years...

Republicans are the ones complaining that Obamacare mandates too many services on exchange plans. Well, there you go, offer Medicaid, which controls costs better, as an option.

 

[First]

Slowly but surely, ACA talking points seem to be getting weaker and weaker.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ng-obamacare-in-three-charts?campaign_id=yhoo

More than 2.1 million Americans selected private health plans through healthcare.gov and state-run websites through Dec. 28, the Obama administration announced today. Another 1.6 million were judged eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor. Most of the new enrollees in private health plans—1.8 million—signed up in December, after the White House relaunched the Affordable Care Act’s stuttering website on Dec. 1.

People can still enroll in Obamacare plans through the end of March to get coverage this year. The White House is hoping for a mix of people that includes enough young and healthy folk to balance the medical costs of older enrollees who need more care. Here’s a snapshot of who signed up in the first three months. All data are from the Department of Health and Human Services, through Dec. 28.

About 30 percent of new enrollees are under 35. White House officials say that’s an acceptable mix, and they expect more young people to come on board closer to the March 31 deadline. “We think that more and more young people are going to sign up as time goes by, based on the experience in Massachusetts,” Gary Cohen, deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said on a conference call with reporters. “We’re actually very pleased with the percentage that we have right now, and we expect that percentage to increase.”

Most of the people who bought coverage on the exchanges this fall got subsidies to help them afford the premiums. That’s in contrast to the first month of the program, when less than one-third of buyers were subsidized. People earning up to four times the poverty rate—as much as $96,000 a year for a family of four—can get help buying coverage.

STORY: How Health Insurance Makes You Happy
The numbers released today don’t count people who bought health plans off the exchanges. Given the website’s technical problems, people buying insurance who earn too much for subsidies may have bypassed healthcare.gov entirely and purchased plans from brokers or directly from insurance companies. The government doesn’t yet have data on how many people got coverage directly.

Under Obamacare, insurers can’t charge men and women different rates—or, as Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it, “Starting in 2014, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition.” That generally resulted in lower prices for women compared with insurance markets where underwriting by gender is allowed, so it’s not surprising women signed up in greater numbers.

 

[michal1980]

Slowly but surely, ACA talking points seem to be getting weaker and weaker.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ng-obamacare-in-three-charts?campaign_id=yhoo

If women want to be equals they should pay for their fair share.

But no, because they use more insurance, and don't want to pay for it, we have to raise the rates of men.

 

[ivwshane]

If women want to be equals they should pay for their fair share.

But no, because they use more insurance, and don't want to pay for it, we have to raise the rates of men.

You know who uses more insurance? Old people but I don't see you bitching about that! I don't see you saying they should be paying more.

 

[senseamp]

Slowly but surely, ACA talking points seem to be getting weaker and weaker.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ng-obamacare-in-three-charts?campaign_id=yhoo

You mean anti-ACA talking points are getting weaker and weaker?

 

[sactoking]

Reuters puts the number at 24%.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-healthcare-idINL2N0KN18G20140113

Politico says it's "just under a quarter."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/obamacare-young-adults-enrollees-102115.html

 

[loganone]

You mean anti-ACA talking points are getting weaker and weaker?

They haven't gotten weaker, if anything they've gotten stronger. According to the data only 24% of enrollees are between 18-34. 38-40% was the goal needed to make everything financially viable, 25% was considered the worst case "death spiral" scenario.

Of course since no one has a clue how many of these people have actually paid their first month premium, none of these numbers mean anything anyways.

 

[michal1980]

You know who uses more insurance? Old people but I don't see you bitching about that! I don't see you saying they should be paying more.

I have previously.


They quoted wall of talk had Obama admin ranting about how having men pay for women's insurance was somehow making things more fair.

 

[senseamp]

They haven't gotten weaker, if anything they've gotten stronger. According to the data only 24% of enrollees are between 18-34. 38-40% was the goal needed to make everything financially viable, 25% was considered the worst case "death spiral" scenario.

Of course since no one has a clue how many of these people have actually paid their first month premium, none of these numbers mean anything anyways.

Goal is by end of March, not end of December. Even then, there wouldn't be a death spiral, because of risk corridors for 3 years.
It was expected that most young people will procrastinate, so they should have no problem hitting 25% by March if they hit 24% in December.
So this death spiral is nothing but a Republican pipe dream.

 

[michal1980]

Goal is by end of March, not end of December. Even then, there wouldn't be a death spiral, because of risk corridors for 3 years.
It was expected that most young people will procrastinate, so they should have no problem hitting 25% by March if they hit 24% in December.
So this death spiral is nothing but a Republican pipe dream.

risk corridors - ie socialized medicine.

 

[senseamp]

risk corridors - ie socialized medicine.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

 

[werepossum]

Slowly but surely, ACA talking points seem to be getting weaker and weaker.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ng-obamacare-in-three-charts?campaign_id=yhoo

Weren't you just telling us a couple weeks ago that more than six million people have gotten insurance through Obamacare?

 

[boomerang]

Weren't you just telling us a couple weeks ago that more than six million people have gotten insurance through Obamacare?

He sure did.

 

[fskimospy]

They haven't gotten weaker, if anything they've gotten stronger. According to the data only 24% of enrollees are between 18-34. 38-40% was the goal needed to make everything financially viable, 25% was considered the worst case "death spiral" scenario.

Of course since no one has a clue how many of these people have actually paid their first month premium, none of these numbers mean anything anyways.

This is all simply massively inaccurate. If the final numbers show only 25% of the risk pool is of the young demographics, Kaiser analysis predicts a premium increase of a bit over 2%.

Wherever you are getting your numbers from, you need to re-evaluate their usefulness.

 

[First]

Reuters puts the number at 24%.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-healthcare-idINL2N0KN18G20140113

Politico says it's "just under a quarter."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/obamacare-young-adults-enrollees-102115.html

Interesting that the Bloomberg article got the %'s wrong. It indeed seems to be a quarter.

You mean anti-ACA talking points are getting weaker and weaker?

Yes, this.

Weren't you just telling us a couple weeks ago that more than six million people have gotten insurance through Obamacare?

Yes, and? Still true.

 

[michal1980]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

of course if your one of the unworking masses like yourself socialism is good. Someone else paying is always a good deal for those not working.

 

[senseamp]

of course if your one of the unworking masses like yourself socialism is good. Someone else paying is always a good deal for those not working.

Socialized medicine gets same results cheaper, so it's a good deal, period.

 

[sactoking]

Interesting that the Bloomberg article got the %'s wrong. It indeed seems to be a quarter.

I'm not so sure Bloomberg is wrong. It appears that their number of ~30% is "under 35" and the Politico and Reuters number of ~24% is "18-34". It follows then that they could both be right if the 0-18 demographic is ~6%.

This brings up a few questions in my mind:
1. Are the CBO and KFF numbers based on <35 or 18-34?
2. If 18-34, why are they discounting the 0-18 demographic which, once you get past the first year, tends to have really low morbidity?
3. Assuming it is 18-34 why is Bloomberg cooking the numbers? Assuming it is <35 why are Politico and Reuters cooking the numbers?

 

[First]

I'm not so sure Bloomberg is wrong. It appears that their number of ~30% is "under 35" and the Politico and Reuters number of ~24% is "18-34". It follows then that they could both be right if the 0-18 demographic is ~6%.

This brings up a few questions in my mind:
1. Are the CBO and KFF numbers based on <35 or 18-34?
2. If 18-34, why are they discounting the 0-18 demographic which, once you get past the first year, tends to have really low morbidity?
3. Assuming it is 18-34 why is Bloomberg cooking the numbers? Assuming it is <35 why are Politico and Reuters cooking the numbers?

Yeah I noticed that 35 distinction but just thought it was lazy reporting, something I've been hearing on the risk pools all day. Radio broadcasts saying "under age 34" instead of "age 34 and under", etc.

We'll know soon enough.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting that the Bloomberg article got the %'s wrong. It indeed seems to be a quarter.

Yes, this.

Yes, and? Still true.

So it's still true that it's more than six million and it's also true that it's 3.7 million. Interesting. Numbers don't usually display that kind of, um, flexibility.

 

[sactoking]

I went back to the KFF study (http://kff.org/health-reform/perspe...sc=87270983.2.1389717684334&__hsfp=1109192117) and they indeed say "18-34" and not "<35". I haven't checked the CBO yet but I am postulating a hypothesis based on the KFF study: the <18 age group is being ignored because they fall outside the 3:1 age banding. Since 3:1 is widely accepted to "punish" the young and "aid" the aged, if you fall outside the age curve you're "neutral".

Which leads me back to a question I posed earlier, why is Bloomberg misrepresenting the numbers and their perceived impact? Is it lack of understanding, something sinister, or something else?

 

[First]

So it's still true that it's more than six million and it's also true that it's 3.7 million. Interesting. Numbers don't usually display that kind of, um, flexibility.

You're confused, I've never referenced a 3.7M figure, in this thread or any other.

I went back to the KFF study (http://kff.org/health-reform/perspe...sc=87270983.2.1389717684334&__hsfp=1109192117) and they indeed say "18-34" and not "<35". I haven't checked the CBO yet but I am postulating a hypothesis based on the KFF study: the <18 age group is being ignored because they fall outside the 3:1 age banding. Since 3:1 is widely accepted to "punish" the young and "aid" the aged, if you fall outside the age curve you're "neutral".

Which leads me back to a question I posed earlier, why is Bloomberg misrepresenting the numbers and their perceived impact? Is it lack of understanding, something sinister, or something else?

Yeah I'd like to know as well. Bloomberg references 30% by using <18 year olds + 18-34 year olds i.e. 6% + 24%, but as you say the <18 may be categorized as neutral? I don't know, you'd understand that better than I and, I imagine, you understand it better than the Bloomberg writer does, leading me to believe it's a case of lack of understanding about 3:1 age banding.

 

[werepossum]

You're confused, I've never referenced a 3.7M figure, in this thread or any other.
SNIP

Um, okay . . .

Slowly but surely, ACA talking points seem to be getting weaker and weaker.
Quote:
More than 2.1 million Americans selected private health plans through healthcare.gov and state-run websites through Dec. 28, the Obama administration announced today. Another 1.6 million were judged eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor. Most of the new enrollees in private health plans—1.8 million—signed up in December, after the White House relaunched the Affordable Care Act’s stuttering website on Dec. 1.

People can still enroll in Obamacare plans through the end of March to get coverage this year. The White House is hoping for a mix of people that includes enough young and healthy folk to balance the medical costs of older enrollees who need more care. Here’s a snapshot of who signed up in the first three months. All data are from the Department of Health and Human Services, through Dec. 28.

About 30 percent of new enrollees are under 35. White House officials say that’s an acceptable mix, and they expect more young people to come on board closer to the March 31 deadline. “We think that more and more young people are going to sign up as time goes by, based on the experience in Massachusetts,” Gary Cohen, deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said on a conference call with reporters. “We’re actually very pleased with the percentage that we have right now, and we expect that percentage to increase.”

Most of the people who bought coverage on the exchanges this fall got subsidies to help them afford the premiums. That’s in contrast to the first month of the program, when less than one-third of buyers were subsidized. People earning up to four times the poverty rate—as much as $96,000 a year for a family of four—can get help buying coverage.

STORY: How Health Insurance Makes You Happy
The numbers released today don’t count people who bought health plans off the exchanges. Given the website’s technical problems, people buying insurance who earn too much for subsidies may have bypassed healthcare.gov entirely and purchased plans from brokers or directly from insurance companies. The government doesn’t yet have data on how many people got coverage directly.

Under Obamacare, insurers can’t charge men and women different rates—or, as Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it, “Starting in 2014, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition.” That generally resulted in lower prices for women compared with insurance markets where underwriting by gender is allowed, so it’s not surprising women signed up in greater numbers.
__________________

Just so we're clear, 2.1 million plus 1.6 million equals 3.7 million.

 

[First]

Um, okay . . .


Just so we're clear, 2.1 million plus 1.6 million equals 3.7 million.

I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread; 3M persons age 26 and under are on parent's healthcare plans because of ACA, so combined with private exchange enrollment that's 3M + 2.1M = 5.1M). Then, you have 3.9M that were deemed eligible for Medicaid just through November (not including December in other words), as I previously referenced in this same thread, here. Now, as I said in that post, further clarification was needed on the Medicaid numbers, as that 3.9M aren't all directly attributable to ACA; for example, due to people re-upping existing Medicaid or those being eligible under the non-ACA expanded Medicaid rules, something that was recently discussed by the ever illuminating Sean Trende on RCP here. Nonetheless, it's almost certainly already 6M+ if you take everything into account.

So while I can understand how you'd conclude the Bloomberg article gives a full accounting of ACA enrollments....it doesn't.